Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  seo-no

CNN Googles ‘Rick Santorum,’ Turns Up Hilarious Not-To-Be-Named Results

With every single American deciding who they’re going to text their vote for based on Google search results, Rick Santorum is well aware of the uphill battle he faces. (Maybe he should hire J.C. Penny’s search engine optimization wizards?) CNN leaves it up to viewers to figure out what’s so dangerous about entering this man’s name into the WWW.

By:           JD
On:           Feb 20, 2011
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 53 Comments
    • SouthSideShorty
      SouthSideShorty

      I watched this expecting Santorum to put his foor in his mouth somehow, but came away wondering how this is supposed to make him look bad. Um . . . how, exactly? To me, Dan Savage is the one who exudes the maturity of a 13-year-old girl with nothing in her armory but name-calling. Hardly anything to hi-five each other about.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Rick Santorum is a hateful, monstrous bigot.
      I am very happy that his name is now used to describe the frothy blend of lube and fecal matter that is a by-product of anal sex.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scribe
      scribe

      dan savage you ROCK!!!! Come on gay guys we can’t let this fucker get any where near the white house….

      Feb 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @SouthSideShorty: Former Sen. Insanitorum, whose chance to be President is hovering around nil, would be a lot better off if his foot was permanently in his mouth. That way he wouldn’t talk so much nonsense.

      If you’re going to be in the public arena and say stupid things about groups of people, you have to expect this sort of thing. Whining little babies like the former senator and the resigned Alaska governor can’t seem to take it.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andrew
      Andrew

      Wait, wait. She refers to Dan Savage as a “Gay sex columnist” did no one else catch that? Wtf?

      Feb 20, 2011 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @SouthSideShorty: I have to agree. Dan Savage, his tactics, and his rhetoric have always struck me as incredibly childish and silly.

      This name-change only reminds straights about gay (male) sex, and that’s never a good thing. And I think we know why.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BamBam
      BamBam

      @6: Why? They know about it, joke about it, and move on. We shouldn’t have to censor our lives.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      If a public politician refers to gay sex as the same thing as bestiality, I think he deserves all the mockery that he gets.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Savage is…well…savage. Santorum merely argued his policy position; he engaged the political process by staking his ground in a public policy debate. It is uncivilized to respond to that by ridiculing Santorum in the most vulgar, adolescent, and–most importantly of all–personal way. That’s really it: Savage is an ass because rather than debate back, he attacked the person. Simple as that, and there’s no dancing around it.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 10:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @justiceontherocks: Great. Shut up then when a gay politician is called a faggot. As you so intelligently note, one should expect that when one chooses to play in the big leagues, right? No whining now! Idiot.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ophu
      ophu

      Wow, way to be current, CNN, It’s only been about five years now…

      Feb 20, 2011 at 11:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @Just a thought…: One can state a policy position without descending into name-calling and base comparisons designed to specifically inflame the subject of that comment. Nevertheless, Santorum went there. And you’re calling out Savage for responding in kind? Hypocrite, know thyself!

      Feb 21, 2011 at 12:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @Just a thought…: There’s a problem with your logic though, see if you can get your head around this:

      Santorum compared gay sex (and therefore all of us who practice it) to pedophilia and bestiality. I don’t know how you can get much more personal than a persons sex life to be honest. He brought it up to rile up his base and score cheap political points based on the idea that the Gay’s would never be in his corner anyway, so we’re an easy target.

      This is a direct result of his attempt to smear all of us; yes it’s personal, he made it that way.

      That’s not to say one can’t also argue against his “points”; however all of his “points” have been argued and scientifically disproven (someone go get all the ‘Most Pedo’s are straight links). He known his points were crap when he said them, he just said it to stir the pot and rally his base by spreading filth; he brought the savagery on himself.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gigi
      Gigi

      What many of us choose to forget is that we, The Gays, would not have the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy were it not for the rabble-rousers in our midst who refused to take a backseat to wanna-be bullies like Santorum. It disgusts me that some of you believe he was within his rights as a politician to compare us to pedos and dog-f#€kers just to rally his base. Seriously?!?! Give your heads a shake people. Santorum is a ville and hateful bigot. Dan’s website homage to him is very apropos. Suck it Santorum!

      Feb 21, 2011 at 8:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Just a thought…: Get back to us when you have a thought.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      Since when does Rick Santorum deserve civility or honest, open debate? He has shown no civility toward gays and as a religious ideologue he isn’t open to debate. He’s just a slightly more polished and media-savvy Fred Phelps, except he takes his cues from whichever senile codger currently occupies the Vatican.

      Sure, the “santorum” definition thing is childish but don’t make it more than it is, the public twitting of a sanctimonious asshole. Anita Bryant getting a pie in the face wasn’t exactly a cultivated Gore Vidal riposte either but it was still pretty damn satisfying.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Just a thought…: Taking issue with someone who uses the falsified scientific claims produced by Paul Cameron to use as a political weapon, and making your critique acutely personal is not only civil, but entirely appropriate. If you’d like to imagine that gays have a voice to match this idiot Santorum’s murderous misinformation-as-governance tactics, then please continue to do so. However, you might want to consider regrouping to whatever wingnut think tank dumpster full of neo-con shit you crawled out of and re-thinking your position for starters, since you’re beginning from a position where you’re clearly in the dark.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      And it’s not a “public policy” position to compare gay sex to bestiality. It’s gross ignorance and defamation.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Re: “It’s gross ignorance and defamation.”

      It is neither. Literally billions upon billions of people on this planet could reasonably ask, “If you want to redefine marriage, what should be the new boundary, and why? Why, for example, should we include gay marriage, but not say, X, Y, or Z?” Fill in your favorite: polygamy, first cousins, my dog, my toaster. To deny that this is a reasonable question is to refuse to acknowledge that there is a bigger world outside your nervous little gay bubble of reality.

      Re: JUSTICE ON THE ROCKS:

      I’ll take the ad hominem as an indication that you’re incapable of arguing on the facts. Considering the other posts of yours I’ve seen here, I am unsurprised. You seem unintelligent. Have you considered beginning the remedial work that could lead some day to a GED?

      Re: “One can state a policy position without descending into name-calling and base comparisons designed to specifically inflame the subject of that comment.”

      You might take your own advice. That Santorum’s position is disagreeable to you doesn’t make it uncivilized. Your argument robs the term civility of its very meaning. It is easy to be pleasant with a like-minded person; civility really starts to matter when your interlocutor is an opponent.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Just a thought…: I know and care nothing about your opinion of me. As for you, all we know is that you come onto a gay blog to defend a rampantly homophobic former senator, who acts like a baby when someone calls him names. If he didn’t want that, he shouldn’t be in the public arena and he shouldn’t instigate the name calling.

      Now, don’t you have an ex-gay meeting to get to?

      Feb 21, 2011 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Re: “I know and care nothing about your opinion of me.”

      If that were true, you wouldn’t have replied.

      Now don’t you have a GED class to get to?

      Feb 21, 2011 at 10:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Who defined marriage in the first place? It was historically a financial contract for a form of enslavement.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Please don’t feed the trolls. “Just a Thought” has made no valid arguments, just rebuttals. He defends Santorum without apparently being very clear on what Sen. S. actually has said. JAT cannot defend the Senator because he has no facts or viewpoint of his own.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @Soupy:

      Aha! Now we’re getting somewhere.

      You’re right, and the history you refer to is now a very very long one.

      You would like to make a change in that tradition.

      The straight world could well ask a very simple question–but evidently a deceptively simple one, since one can get all sorts of JUSTICE ON THE ROCKS idiocy and diversion and sidestepping, but never a clear, simple answer:

      What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Asking this question does not make me a self-hating gay. It does not make me an ex-gay. It does not mean that I have internalized homophobia. It means that, unlike so many of the gays, I am not so consumed by narcissistic personality disorder that I’m unable to look at both sides of a debate.

      So I put it to you again, distinguished Soupy–or all comers who are competent to engage the question:

      What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      @Just a thought…: Both Santorum’s and your fake “concerns” are just rhetorical bullshit, scare tactics and idiocy posing as reasonable questions. You’re “concerned” about people marrying animals? You’re “curious” about why that wouldn’t also include children? Uh-huh.

      When’s the last time you heard of an animal or child signing a legal contract, ass? Because that’s what marriage is. You, Santorum, or the church of your choice can believe that God himself swoops down and blesses your union and that angels will fly out of your goddamn ass on your wedding night for all anyone cares, but unless both of you can sign a legal contract you’re shit out of luck and that includes if the Pope himself shows up to perform the ceremony.

      So, concern troll, take your “reasonable questions” and shove them up your ass.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @Jeffree:

      1. “Just a Thought” has made no valid arguments,

      In Jeffreeland “I don’t like what he says” = “not valid”. See “personality disorder, narcissistic.

      2. just rebuttals.

      A rebuttal is an argument, genius.

      3. He defends Santorum

      I don’t. I merely asked a question…one you evidently find threatening.

      4. without apparently being very clear on what Sen. S. actually has said.

      You speak without knowing what you’re talking about. That’s not embarrassing?

      5. JAT cannot defend the Senator because he has no facts or viewpoint of his own.

      Mmmmmmokay! Cuz you know!

      Jesus.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @greenmanTN:

      I take it, then, that you too are unable to answer this straightforward question:

      What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Anyone? Anyone?

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      @Just a thought…: Yes, since i have no training in Special Education, I am unwilling to answer patently stupid questions which are specious to begin with, ignorant and illogical on their face, and asked without any real interest in an answer.

      Go ask your toaster. I hear they’re VERY sophisticated these days and will soon be able to sign legal contracts!

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @greenmanTN:

      OK, Greenwhatever is out.

      Question: What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      HehHehHeh. Rick Santorum’s fellow Catholic Stephen Colbert just did a story on this and encouraged his audience to Google “Santorum” and click on the Savage definition over and over again. Unlike the self-righteous Santorum, Colbert only pretends to be stupid.

      Feb 21, 2011 at 11:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Question: What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      LOL, look, the poor troll doesn’t even know how to look up the legal definition of “marriage” in states that have granted marriage equality. It’s amazing that the troll thinks it’s asking a unique, interesting or novel question.

      Amazing that this troll is trying to get us to do its homework.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      No fair, Jeffree, you’ve already dumbed out.

      Question: What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 1:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      C’mon…someone has to be unthreatened by the question. SOMEONE HAS TO STEP UP!

      Feb 22, 2011 at 1:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      What’s going on here? Are all mad? @Just a thought…: You have angered everyone here and I don’t think your question will be answered.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 1:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @TheRealAdam:
      It doesn’t want an answer, it wants to argue. It’s incapable of realizing that several states & countries have already expanded the definition of marriage when they legalized SGM, and that this info is already available. Sorry, but I’m not writing its term paper!

      Hey, how do I know you’re the REAL Adam? (kidding)

      Feb 22, 2011 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @Just a thought…: “Re: “It’s gross ignorance and defamation.”

      It is neither. Literally billions upon billions of people on this planet could reasonably ask, “If you want to redefine marriage, what should be the new boundary, and why? Why, for example, should we include gay marriage, but not say, X, Y, or Z?” Fill in your favorite: polygamy, first cousins, my dog, my toaster. To deny that this is a reasonable question is to refuse to acknowledge that there is a bigger world outside your nervous little gay bubble of reality.”

      Here again, you’re getting in trouble with your logic.

      Setting polygamy aside (because it is a valid question, and one which those who are advocates of polygamy should be free to pursue)The rest of your comparisons make no sense, or in the case of first cousins has a scientifically reasonable reason to be disallowed.

      Two loving and consenting adults deciding to commit their lives to each other is not equivalent to someone marrying their dog, or their toaster, or a child. And to say that it is; or to imply that such a statement is a reasonable argument of debate is asinine as well as insulting. The two simply aren’t equitable, obviously.

      It’s not a question of where do you draw the line. It’s a question of what is the definition of equality; Two consenting adults, who wish to express their love, commitment, and devotion to each other should be able to do so, with all rights and privileges afforded to them as a married couple. That is in no way associated with bestiality, or pedophilia; and to draw that link is not a reasonable extrapolation of an argument, it is a shameful fear mongering smear.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 4:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @SouthSideShorty:

      Every post I’ve seen you in, you have seemed to attack the gay community, or said that the gay community were the real jerks in whatever conflict we were talking about.

      So Rick Santorum can say that there is no difference between gays and peodophioles or people committing beastiality and yet you have not one bad word to say about him.

      Sorry, you either aren’t gay and are trolling here, or you are so phenominally self hating that you can’t think clearly.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 7:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @TheRealAdam:

      “You have angered everyone here”

      Yes! That’s how I know I’m asking a good question.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 10:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @DavyJones:

      Thank you, Davy Jones, for an engagement with the question that, while uncompelling, is at least intelligent.

      “Setting polygamy aside (because it is a valid question, and one which those who are advocates of polygamy should be free to pursue)”

      Thank you for your candor and honesty: You recognize that nothing in the logic of an expanded definition would rule out polygamy, and that therefore to rule it out would be discriminatory.

      “The rest of your comparisons make no sense, or in the case of first cousins has a scientifically reasonable reason to be disallowed.“

      Scientifically reasonable reason? I assume you mean the risk of genetically diseased children. Well, what if they don’t want children? Shouldn’t it be their choice? Why do you oppose cousin equality? Stop the H8.

      “Two loving and consenting adults deciding to commit their lives to each other is not equivalent to someone marrying their dog, or their toaster, or a child. And to say that it is; or to imply that such a statement is a reasonable argument of debate is asinine as well as insulting. The two simply aren’t equitable, obviously.“

      I assume you mean equivalent. Why? Because you say so? That is what we call argument by assertion. You want people to accept what you say simply because it is what you believe. Your language is touching, but includes no legally compelling reasoning on the basis of which to delimit a new definition.

      “It’s not a question of where do you draw the line.”

      Well, it is. You want a legal definition remade. So the new law has to be written. What do you write, and why?

      Let’s note that until a few decades ago, the gay movement and the NAMBLA crowd were tightly allied, until the gays decided that the ephebophiles were a liability and through them under the bus. It was simply expediency.

      So you have to write a law. What exactly do you write, and on what basis to include some and exclude others?

      “It’s a question of what is the definition of equality; Two consenting adults, who wish to express their love, commitment, and devotion to each other should be able to do so, with all rights and privileges afforded to them as a married couple. That is in no way associated with bestiality, or pedophilia; and to draw that link is not a reasonable extrapolation of an argument, it is a shameful fear mongering smear.”

      That is touching language, but the law doesn’t traffic much in touching language. In fact, a lawyer or judge would say that you are begging the question. You want people to believe that your vision is in “no way associated” with other visions, but provide no reasoning regarding why they are dissociated. You come across as no different from your own opponents.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Can you define the marriage “law” as it exists today. Go state by state please.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      @Soupy:

      Oh Lordy that would be a lot!!

      I assume that your point is that there is some variety in the relevant body of law.

      Granted!

      Your question, however, is a positive one: a mere exploration of what is.

      My question is not positive but normative: What ought to be?

      What ought to be the law? You get to write it. What do you write, and why?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Jesus…why is everyone so afraid of this question. Poster after poster will do absolutely anything but answer it.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      Engaging trolls is a losing proposition.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      You seem to avoid my question. What is the law and does it specifically exclude same sex couples?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      It seems like a ridiculous question of how to redefine the law if you can’t define it in the first place.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      clearly it is conservative legislators who are trying to “redefine” the law by inserting genders.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Francis
      Francis

      Why do people engage with trolls? Or people who go out of their way to try to sound intelligent or are desperate for validation? Ignore the clowns people.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just a thought...
      Just a thought...

      Yes, I’m a troll. I’m also self-hating, what with my suffering from internalized homophobia and all. And yes, I’m just trying to sound smart.

      All granted. In fact, I’m so (1) dumb and (2) whacko that it should be child’s play to shut me up once and for all.

      So please…someone: What should be the new definition of marriage, and why?

      Just answer, if you can. If you can’t, then all your name-calling is an unsuccesful distraction. You will essentially admit that your definition is arbitrary and capricious and–here’s the kicker–radically exclusionary. In short, you will be the H8ers.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      The first step to healing is admitting that you have a problem. Good for you!

      Now, can you answer my question about marriage laws that existed that insisted upon opposite genders before you and the christian right became involved.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones [Different person #1 using similar name]

      Actually I did answer your question several posts up; marriage is the union of two consenting adults; that is why it is obvious that equating marriage of two adults to marriage between a man and an animal(or a child) is obnoxious and completely illogical. Neither animals nor children can give legal consent, nor enter into legal contracts (which marriage is).

      Feb 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Once fed, the troll is never sated. Ignore it long enough & it goes elsewhere.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      Civil marriage should not exist. Historically marriage was a way to assure the efficient transfer of property. It’s no longer used or necessary for that purpose. The two modern justifications for it are just bunk. All the nonsense about loving couples is a much later “add on”- and no business of a government’s anyway? Nor does civil marriage promote a “family unit” unless divorce becomes a good bit harder to obtain.

      That said, present day civil marriage conveys a bundle of legal rights denied to single people, many of whom live essentially as a married couple.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.